The Federal Aviation Administration is a busy organization, one that oversees everything from air traffic control systems to pilot certifications. You’d think that would leave it with enough on its hands, but the current vogue for civilian drones keeps piling new new responsibilities onto the beleaguered administration. Last year, the FAA established a drone registry for pilots of unmanned aircraft. Now it’s unequivocally confirming that it’s a federal crime to shoot down a drone, as John Goglia… (www.slate.com) Ещё...

The phoneme for 'i' (uppcase) is expressed in about .25 seconds, lowercase somewhat shorter. That makes the value of d approximately 3 meters or 10 ft. For your premise to be going to ground it would be under 10 ft - use a bat.

That you posted the same thing 6 times indicates to me you have a firm belief in this. Do you have references to State or federal statutes defining this? Has this premise been tested in the courts? How does it interact with the home defense castle doctrine?

Really srobak, try flying a plane 1 inch above my property and see how well that works out for you or anyone else for that matter. And, as far as I am concerned any drone with a camera that intrudes on my privacy gives me the right to remove it from my property if it is below the legal altitude for aircraft, which happens to be 1000' above the highest object in the area, etc. Want to fly something in the air, then comply with the aviation rules of flight!

The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner controls use of the airspace above their property in connection with their uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the private airspace above the property in order to prevent nuisance

Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. So what if a drone overflies your house? I agree if it comes with a camera or other externals, then that would / could be an issue. Otherwise - who cares? (Let the down votes begin.)

It's almost getting impossible to buy one without a camera these days. I know all three of mine came with cameras built in, and mine run the price gamut from $20 up to $450. With the size of the cameras these days they're becoming much more prevalent.

Keep your toys at your place and we'll get along just fine. You wouldn't buy him an R/C monster truck and expect him to be able to drive it through my flower beds, would you? Of course not, so why should it be any different for a flying toy?

How about just a plain toy for fun? Very similar to the model planes people flew when I was a kid, except they were tethered and flew in a circle - simply due to lack of technology of the day. I can't quite get over all of the gun-happy responses here - a dangerous over reaction. in my humble opinion.

That the FAA is busy is not a reason for it not to try to expand its powers - its a bureaucracy and bureaucrats - especially FAA bureaucrats are forever trying to expand their portfolio. Maybe the next administration will decide that the FAA is one of the Agencies that we would be better off without. After all, what do they do other than make certifying aircraft cost a fortune; keep light aircraft engine technology mired in the 1940s; hang onto a a medical examination process that has been shown without a shadow of a doubt to be completely superfluous; fail to come up with a viable alternative to leaded aviation fuels; need I go on ?

Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property. YOU do not own airspace.

The FAA can go fish. If a drone is over my private property it is mine and any federal employee who approaches had better have the elected sheriff of the county of my residence with them or they will find themselves under arrest. I am registered with www.noflyzone.org and while that is arguable it shows that I don't wish to enjoy their overflights. Fly over me? Lose your drone. In pieces.

Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property. noflyzone.org has no legal standing.

Actually I don't think of it as ownership of airspace, rather just quote the air regulation in the FAR's and CAR's: no one shall fly over a built up area or group of people at an altitude less than 1000' verical from the highest object and at least 2000' horizontal from the built up area or group of people.

If you are in the confines of most cities (in my state, at least) there are ordinances against firing a weapon in the city limits. Outside of the city limits, you can do what you want with your firearm (other than threatening, shooting someone, etc...criminals/trespassers who threaten you excepted) as long as you don't endanger neighbors or harm their property. The laws are more detailed, generally, than my description above... but you get the point, I hope.

If it comes over my property below controlled airspace it's trespassing and becomes a free skeet target. My property, including the airspace above it to the start of controlled airspace is mine to do with as I wish, and I wish it to be a no-fly zone for drones not under my control.

Nope. You only own what is attached to the ground on your property. As soon as something has as much as an inch of space between it and the ground - it is no longer on private property. The tower might be on your private property - but anything in the air freely below it's height and above the ground is not.

No, but the model flying field I went to had signs telling you to stay within the boundaries of the field, and that any flights outside that would be considered as trespassing. The local police would sometimes get called, and did issue desk appearance tickets twice that I'm aware of.

To be fair, these were gas powered RC planes that were quite noisy and smelly, and I could understand not wanting these buzzing balsa hornets drowning out the sound of the ball game as you tried to relax in your yard, or coming through your picture window.

Okay, okay, I guess I have to 'fess up - I remember those gas powered planes and yes, that buzzing was truly annoying. But still, I don't recall hearing about anyone shooting one down. People thought differently then.

None were shot down (as far as I know). but the police did treat it as trespassing and issue desk appearance tickets. I never got one, so I don't know what happened from there, but I heard that fines were handed out in some cases. This person "srobak" is claiming the opposite, that it's not trespassing, so I suggest they argue it with the NYS courts and legislature.

Wikipedia has a short but good discussion of what generally constitutes air rights, which may contribute to some folk's understanding of the issue.

Not mentioned in there are some of issues I've heard of: there have been cases where people have sued because a proposed building would block sunlight to the plaintiffs' property. I don't know the outcome of those.

Well Gentlemen, I think someone should invent an short range electrical signal jammer or " drone killer" as I like to call it. No bullets, no noise just a litttle hand held device with a 100' range and most likely ithe dead drone will fall on your property......finders keepers! So on another topic, any oldtimers our there like myself worried about these third world airlines with fifth freedom rights and the sudden appearance deranged flight crew members?

I think the "drone defender" or jammer is still good to go. You are not damaging or destroying an aircraft. It simply lands on your property. Once there, anything could happen to it like accidentally running over it with the lawn tractor.

I wouldn't sweat the fifth freedom flyers as we are too busy letting terrorists enter the country any way they want to come here. Aviation themed terrorism is giving way to the much easier to pull off ground attacks.

There was a driver who used a cell phone jammer for close to two years on his daily drive from Tampa - Orlando. The only reason he got caught was a trooper lost his signal when in the drivers proximity.

Rather stupid as you know nothing about guns and the damage they can do to others or there property. Having people shoot down drones poses a risk you and others who want to might not want to take on. The possibility of killing a person by accident due to the bullet or pellets cause shooting down the drone. Now is it so funny now??

There have been several instances of someone being killed by a bullet shot into the air, usually on a 4th of July or similar holiday. I read about one just in the past year or two. I personally discovered what appeared to be a 30-06 round on the floor of a church just outside Houston, TX around 1986 or so. It had penetrated the metal roof, insulation and ceiling tiles at about a 40-50 degree angle. Fortunately, it happened while no one was in the building!

That right there tells me it wasn't a case of it being shot up into the air, it was fired at a target on the ground and missed. Easy enough to do if you're firing from the prone position at a target that's slightly elevated.

Might I suggest you look up "ballistics"? There is a huge difference in velocities between a bullet returning to earth after being fired into the air, and one that misses a target on the ground. "Stray bullet kills" searching will turn up ample examples of the latter, none of the former.

I agree that ballistics does show a big difference. That difference is (given the same muzzle velocity and projectile weight, and ignoring windage for simplicity) a function of the angle above horizontal that the shot is made. Basically, a shot at 90 degrees (ie straight up) will fall maxing out at terminal velocity which is somewhere around the momentum needed to begin to penetrate skin. It could kill, would probably injure, depending on what it hits. As the angle is decreased, the vertical component of velocity will still max out at terminal velocity, but there is now a horizontal velocity component (which is reduced only by frictional forces) and could very much be lethal or injurious at high angles. As shooting at a drone would rarely be at 90 degrees and more often probably in the 30 to 75 degree range, still "into the air" the possibility of a lethal or injurious projectile remains. As an example, calculate the momentum at ground impact of a 158 gr .357 bullet with a muzzle velocity of 450 m/s fired at a 45 degree angle. [And no, I didn't have to look it up.]

The way I see it, the angle is going to be >75 degrees, and the weapon of choice is most likely to be a shotgun with birdshot. I base this on the stipulation that the drone is "over" someone's property and that most people are not really going to care about a drone over their fields, but will object as it nears the house, and that a shotgun is going to be the most effective weapon for this purpose, and the most common for home defense.

Mass doesn't have anything to do with terminal velocity. That's determined by density and air resistance. Quite a few people have been killed over the years by bullets "falling from orbit" when people shot them into the air in celebratory fashion.

Actually, in earth's atmosphere, the shape has much to do with the velocity it falls. Ever dropped a piece of paper that is flat and an equal sheet of paper that is rolled tightly into a small cylinder or condensed into a small ball? They don't fall at the same velocity! That is why sailplanes with wings can stay in the air so long! Point them down and see how fast they hit the earth, especially if the spoilers are deployed.

If you take the time to see what/whom I was responding to (Ken Young (So a rock and a piece of paper of equal weight will fall to the earth at the same velocity), you might find it possible to agree with my statement! And, who mentioned an armed sailplane?